|
Post by Herb on Jan 23, 2008 11:25:24 GMT -5
It seems to me that the only way there could have been more than 200 is if unlisted volunteers arrived somehow -- men who never made it onto anybody's list, perhaps fresh from the states. Otherwise, why wouldn't SOMEBODY finally have discovered them missing and added them to the count. The Gonzales 32 are well documented -- all had families in Gonzales. But perhaps the other 28 had just arrived in Texas and joined them in Gonzales, but weren't enrolled? Pretty thin, I know, but I just cannot buy everybody on the Texas side saying under 200 if there were 250-some. Honestly, I really agree. The more and more I dig into this the more I'm convinced Filisola's "around 200" is as close as we're going to get. The Sutherland information seems to bear it out. The hard thing for me to comprehend is why Travis wrote only three Tejano's joined with the defenders. The only explanation I can think of is he must have been talking about formally enlisting in the Texian Army. The other 17 or so Tejano defenders remaining militia and only willing to serve during the present emergency. In the end on March 6th, it didn't matter .
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 13:54:21 GMT -5
Just a thought. Perhaps Travis was differentiating between "citizens of this municipality" and actual enlisted members of the army. Juan Seguin's company may have been assumed to be part of the garrison. The "three Mexicans now in the fort" may have referred to male townspeople. I haven't thought this through, but there's a start. Eight Tejano enlisted defenders; and only three of the twenty or so "citizens" of Bexar who entered the Alamo on the 23rd. The others left without joining the fight.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 23, 2008 16:18:51 GMT -5
Possibly Rich, but I think its more of a political thing and that the three referred to by Travis were guys who had joined the Texian army and were in favour of independence, while the majority were Federalistas who were against both Santa Anna and independence and so "not with us".
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 20:42:20 GMT -5
Sounds like a better call than mine, Stuart. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 23, 2008 21:40:01 GMT -5
How do we know the number of Tejanos in the fort during the battle? Didn't several leave when Santa Anna offered them amnesty? Rich, are those the 20 "townspeople" you referred to, of whom only 3 remained in the fort? In any case, I get the feeling that Travis didn't really trust the Tejanos; part racism maybe; part distrust of those who wanted Texas to remain in the Mexican federation??
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 24, 2008 1:36:59 GMT -5
The 20 "townspeople" are why Travis isn't to be trusted on this one because Filisola adds them to the 180-odd bodycount.
As I've mentioned on this and/or threads something which I've found in my research is that American/Anglo-Texian accounts very consistently ignore the presence of Tejanos/Mexicans serving alongside them - check out my analysis of Grant's people at Agua Dulce.
Seguin is remembered because he's portrayed as a tragic figure who cast his lot for Texas and independence and can therefore be held up as an exemplar of the fact that it wasn't just "Americans/white men" who revolted and made Texas. Benavides on the other hand, who rode with Grant, was a Federalista who didn't fight for independence and is now forgotten along with his (more numerous) men
Houston certainly referred to the 187 Alamo defenders as white men and that I reckon is where the discrepancies arise in that there was a relatively sizeable Tejano contingent of 20 or more unrecognised by Travis because unlike his white soldiers they weren't fighting for independence
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 24, 2008 13:34:06 GMT -5
By the same token, Joe would not have been included, making the "policy" consistent re: non-whites. Remember, the U.S. Constitution designated slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of giving southern states more representation in Congress and more Presidential electors. They really did have it both ways!
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 24, 2008 15:16:55 GMT -5
This again leads back to a point I made on another thread here or somewhere else. All the Alamo Defender lists from Amelia Williams on down have shoehorned the named candidates into that figure of 187-189 and as it currently stands that list includes Joe ( ) and a number of named Tejano defenders. Cut them out because Travis wouldn't have recognised them as "white men" and a number of vacancies open up to reach that total of 187-189 white defenders - enough to account for the few possibles remaining out of TRL's list without requiring a second reinforcement
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 24, 2008 18:02:39 GMT -5
This again leads back to a point I made on another thread here or somewhere else. All the Alamo Defender lists from Amelia Williams on down have shoehorned the named candidates into that figure of 187-189 and as it currently stands that list includes Joe ( ) and a number of named Tejano defenders. Cut them out because Travis wouldn't have recognised them as "white men" and a number of vacancies open up to reach that total of 187-189 white defenders - enough to account for the few possibles remaining out of TRL's list without requiring a second reinforcement The Houston reference, certainly supports this interpetation.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 26, 2008 10:16:03 GMT -5
This again leads back to a point I made on another thread here or somewhere else. All the Alamo Defender lists from Amelia Williams on down have shoehorned the named candidates into that figure of 187-189 and as it currently stands that list includes Joe ( ) and a number of named Tejano defenders. Cut them out because Travis wouldn't have recognised them as "white men" and a number of vacancies open up to reach that total of 187-189 white defenders - enough to account for the few possibles remaining out of TRL's list without requiring a second reinforcement Having an idle moment I did a count of the entries in Groneman's "Alamo Defenders"; where he names 186 men killed, plus three survivors; Henry Warnell, Brigido Guerrero and Joe ( ) to make up the March 6 total of 189 defenders all ranks. I think myself that a couple of the names are problematic, but that's neither here nor there... Fully 10 of those 189 named defenders are non-white; therefore if we accept what all the contemporary American sources tell us; that there were 187/189 white defenders; then we need to identify 8-10 additional white defenders. Most of those additional names proposed by the late Tom Lindley can still be accounted for elsewhere, but its possible that a few of the individuals on his list might indeed have died at the Alamo. The point is however that up to 10 of them can be added to the roll without requiring the contrivance of a second reinforcement otherwise unknown to history.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 28, 2008 12:14:20 GMT -5
This may shed a little light on J. H. Nash, who was on the February 1 Alamo voting list: John H. Jenkins, in his Texas Revolution and Republic sale catalog (1986), lot 130, listed an autograph letter of January 18, 1836, by James Bowie, signing himself as "Commandant of the post of Bexar." He stated that J. H. Nash was due payment for his horse and services "for carrying expresses by order of Col. Neil to San Philipe [ sic] de Austin." This is assuming the document was authentic. It seems likely that J. H. Nash was identical to James H. Nash, who, according to the Index to the Military Rolls of the Republic of Texas, was a member of James Chesshire's Company in the 1835 Siege of Bexar. www.mindspring.com/~dmaxey/l/nocap_9l.htm www.mindspring.com/~dmaxey/l/chesj_9l.htmOne list of Lt. George C. Kimbell's Gonzales Ranging Company of Mounted Volunteers, enlisted from from Feb 23, 1836, lists James Nash as one of the members who wasn't killed at the Alamo. www.mindspring.com/~dmaxey/l/kimbgc1l.htmStephen L. Moore, in his history of the Battle of San Jacinto, Eighteen Minutes, lists James H. Nash--possibly the same person--as a private in Henry W. Karnes Cavalry Company, organized March 20, 1836. According to one account recited by Moore, Nash was credited with saving the life of "Deaf" Smith during the battle.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 10, 2010 14:24:17 GMT -5
In view of recent digressions on the Exodus thread I thought it was worth resurrecting this one.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Apr 10, 2010 18:32:10 GMT -5
Very enigmatic, is the first possible list of Tejano victims who died in the Alamo. This appears in the papers of Mirabeau Lamar from sometime in the 1840's. He only lists 5 but adds this cautionary note " names of some Mexicans who fell in the Alamo"
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 22, 2010 4:51:15 GMT -5
While I think I've excluded Henry Warnall from the Alamo List, I may have found two soldiers that should be included as slain defenders. Actually they should possibly be restored as they appeared on early lists. While researching land claims for another member yesterday, I stumbled across a really old Alamo list. It contains many of the familar defender names and a few obscure ones. Two assistant quartermasters named Burnelland Anderson appear as the 19th and 20th victims on the list. These two men were named in the Mar. 24, 1836 Telegraph and Texas Register list and the TX Muster Roll Index for Lt. Col. Travis' command, but were later excluded for some reason. Has anyone seen the list before or does anyone know why these men were omitted from later lists and books? Crockett Grantee - Muster Roll (really a death list) Click on View PDF at bottom wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/central/LandGrants/landgrants.cfm?intID=653596
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 23, 2010 9:11:42 GMT -5
One knowledgeable member has informed me that he has never seen this list before. Its not dated, but based on the appearance of the paper, script and the fact it was used to prove Col. Crockett's demise at the Alamo indicates that it must be really early in my opinion. There is also a page one to the list floating around somewhere in the General Land Office.
|
|